As we have been able to see through the years and our studies, practically all religions have been conceived under the fundamental concept of God, or a god, in this post I am going to deal with the idea of religions which have been a permanent part of our lives for thousands of years, namely - in chronological order - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Of all the three are based in beliefs that have God as the main core of everything that exists, the origin and eventual end of life, any life.

In accordance with what we have learnt, Christianity was the origin of a religion that sprouted from Judaism and which Judaism did never accept as legitimate by Jewish standards. The Christian Messiah was never admitted as the Messiah the Jewish Scriptures spoke of. Perhaps if he had been admitted Christianity would not exist, only Judaism would have been consolidated. But events took a different course to what today seems it would have been a logical one.

Islam came to existence long afterwards. Its origins are in a way much to do with Judaism and Christianity, although it is a totally different religion. All in all I wonder whether if there had not been a split there would have existed the problems we have today which oppose the three religions against one another. If there existed just one giant religion all over the world, without divisions, how would the world behave in religious matters? Would it have been a religious dictatorship? My opinion is that it would not. My opinion is that given the individualistic condition of the human being, it would eventually have split into as many divisions as there are today, with the same problems we also have today.

The concept of God has been taken by the three divisions as an individual patrimonial asset and each one has claimed its property along thousands of years, something that bumps frontally with the very foundations of the three religions, because in all cases God is the proprietor not the propriety.

It is curious that the term fundamentalism was first used in reference to an extreme Protestan position characterised by the belief that the Bible is a verbally accurate recording of the word of God. This position holds that the writers were divinely inspired to the smallest detail of revealed truth. The term has been applied to a part of Islam with the same strict adherences to the Muslim sacred text, the Coran. But the term, if I am not wrong, was employed by Christians in the first place. Following the definition given above, then Judaism is the most fundamentalist of all doctrines, but this has never been said of it.

We have Orthodox Jews, as we have Orthodox Christians and I believe Muslims, too. Can we liken Orthodoxy to fundamentalism? I think we can quite easily. As happens with so many other idioms or terms in our languages, the degeneration of the meaning of fundamentalism has been clearly taken to represent a religious position that in our Western world demonises its followers when it is applied to Islam. If we follow the traject of the term its meaning is all the contrary: it is strict adherence to a faith, nothing else.

Did the persons who started using the term realise that its application was by no means a clear reflection of the real status of those it was meant to be used for? Perhaps they did not or perhaps they did, I do not know nor do I believe anyone will at this stage. The fact is that the term is considered as a deprecatory one referred to the Muslims who use violence in their aims which as far as I can understand, have nothing to do with the Islamic religion. It has to do with the freedoms the people who live in the Middle East region want to achieve for themselves, freedom from the economical grip exerted by multinational corporations whose only interest in that region is the exploitation of natural resources paramount for the normal development of the Western world.

But a world-wide system of news at the service of those corporations has created a false impression on the minds of its readers which really in my opinion disguise a legitimate claim on those resources in a veneer of religiosity. Not that religion is not mixed up in the struggle, but it is mixed up because it is the only way to make Arabs move, given their adherence to the Islam’s principles and tenets. In my opinion it is not conquest what this movement pursues, it is the devolution to their legitimate owners of the exploitation alien forces make of those natural resources.

And in this pursuit the media I referred to before take much care in focussing the attention on Muslims in general, which creates the desired outcome of generalisation of the problem. The more people accuse the Muslims in general, the more Muslims will join what the Western Media call fundamentalism. That is the main mistake - sometimes I call it purpose - of the Western countries regarding the Arabs: their position face to Islamic countries is being conducted by interested parties which will never bow to the Arabic countries’ legitimate claim of their own land and resources.

And to this we should also add the precarious situation in which Arab leaders recognised by the Western countries find themselves in, starting being hated by their subjects for their affinity to the West.

My thoughts about the situation in the Middle East, and in the World, are many more than a normal post would permit, so I will leave it as it is now for the consideration of readers, as otherwise it would be too long and boresome.

The title of the post also allows for a second part to be written.

Your response: